Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40754386›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of clinical nutrition2025

Methodological standards for body composition-an expert-endorsed guide for research and clinical applications: levels, models, and terminology.

Carla M Prado, M Cristina Gonzalez, Kristina Norman, Rocco Barazzoni, Tommy Cederholm, Charlene Compher, Gordon L Jensen, Takashi Abe, Thiago Gonzalez Barbosa-Silva, Anja Bosy-Westphal and 19 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Future of CT body composition research: Methodological discrepancies and advances.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors.

Carla M PradoDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: Carla.prado@ualberta.ca.
M Cristina GonzalezPostgraduate Program in Nutrition and Food, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Kristina NormanDepartment of Geriatrics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Nutrition and Gerontology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rebrücke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Rocco BarazzoniDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Ospedale di Cattinara, Trieste, Italy.
Tommy CederholmDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Theme Inflammation and Ageing, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Charlene CompherDepartment of Biobehavioral Health Science, University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Gordon L JensenDean's Office and Department of Medicine, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, United States.
Takashi AbeInstitute of Health and Sports Science & Medicine, Graduate School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, Chiba, Japan.
Thiago Gonzalez Barbosa-SilvaDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Anja Bosy-WestphalInstitute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.
Owen T CarmichaelPennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Carrie P EarthmanDepartment of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
William J EvansDepartment of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States; Division of Geriatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.
David A FieldsDepartment of Pediatrics, Section of Diabetes and Endocrinology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK United States.
Laurence GentonClinical Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Houchun Harry HuDepartment of Radiology, University of Colorado, Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.
Murat KaraDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey.
Jennifer L Miles-ChanHuman Nutrition Unit, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Marina MourtzakisDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Manfred J MullerInstitute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.
Camila E OrssoDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Stany PerkisasUniversity Center for Geriatrics, University of Antwerp/ZNA, Antwerp, Belgium.
Luís B SardinhaExercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Cruz Quebrada, Portugal.
John A ShepherdDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, United States.
Mario SiervoSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; Curtin Dementia Centre of Excellence, enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Boyd Jg StraussDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Yosuke YamadaGraduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan; Department of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Shankuan ZhuChronic Disease Research Institute, The Children's Hospital, and National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Steven B HeymsfieldPennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA, United States. Electronic address: steven.heymsfield@pbrc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body composition assessment is widely used in both research and clinical practice, yet confusion over basic concepts and terminology persists, leading to inaccurate assessments, comparisons, and interpretations. To address this concern, an international working group was formed to clarify basic concepts, standardize terminology, and provide guidance on the use and interpretation of body composition assessment. This initial publication addresses methodological standards, focusing on summarizing body composition levels and models, and introducing standardized terms and definitions. Body composition is organized into 5 distinct levels, ranging from atomic to whole-body, with each higher level encompassing the components of the preceding less complex levels. As a result, terms that describe components at different levels should not be used interchangeably. For example, the use of the molecular-level term "lean body mass" is discouraged because it inaccurately refers to fat-free mass (FFM), lean mass, or lean soft tissue (LST). FFM includes all compartments at the molecular level except fat (nonpolar lipids; mainly triglycerides), and FFM also contains nonfat (or polar) lipids. The term "lean mass" is equivalent to FFM, but not to LST, as FFM includes bone mineral content. Additionally, skeletal muscle is classified at the tissue-organ level and should not be confused with the molecular-level components FFM and LST. Likewise, fat mass and adipose tissue are different components: fat mass, mainly triglycerides, is assessed at the molecular level, whereas adipose tissue is measured at the tissue-organ level. Models are also specific to each level. It is crucial for researchers and clinicians to have a clear understanding of what each body component entails and to use accurate terminology to ensure precise assessment, reporting, and interpretation of body composition data.

Indexed as

Body CompositionTerminology as TopicAdipose TissueHumansModels, Biologicaladipose tissue fat-free massbody compositiondefinitionsfat masslean masslean soft tissueskeletal muscleterminology

Identifiers

PMID40754386
PMCPMC12405783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.